They may be thought provoking, but if they differ from the majority of Orthodox fathers, then we have all the reason to dispute them. However I'm not saying he's wrong or teaching things contrary to the fathers, I'm just saying that we need to be careful about any "teacher" and always question what they say, and accept what they say if it's in concordance with the universal teachings of the Church.

Just because someone brings forth a good argument that is well-thought out, logical and scholarly doesn't make them right on a theological level, we certainly know this from western theology. Always question teachings from individuals and always measure them up against tradition, the Church fathers and the universal witness of the Church.

(Final note: I hope it is clear that I'm not speaking specifically about Abp. Lazar Puhalo, but rather about any teacher, it's not up to me to judge if he's right or wrong, I'm simply calling for some examination of him from an Orthodox standpoint rather than from individual opinions of people posting on the internet)

However, I wasn't just relaying my individual viewpoint. As an Orthodox Christain, I have not, as of yet, found reason to dispute Archbishop Lazar's teachings on Evolution. God is great, I've no reason to think a day to Him is the same length of time as a day is to humans. Furthermore, the Old Testament is chock full of metaphors, why not Genesis? Evolution by intelligent design? Believe me, I've discussed this topic with many an Orthodox person, none have produced anything to say otherwise. But I'm not out to attack those who don't believe in Evolution. They have the right to their opinion.

Maybe we can agree that we will never understand God, nor should we try to. Someone once told me that the day we do, God ceases to exist.

I do not accept beliefs without question, I question everyday of my life, isn't this part of being a Christain?

Oh definitely, personally I don't really ascribe to any specific formula for creation, I just accept that God did it, however it did it isn't important to me.I really don't dispute Abp. Lazar Puhalo's evolution theories, personally I don't care about them, it's other teachings of his that I find issue with. However those aren't really important to this discussion.

Also: I didn't think you weren't questioning things or investigating them, I was just kind of posting that as a precaution.

I fully admire your acceptanceMy interest in knowledge may prove to be my ultimate downfall, "curiousity killed the cat" you might say. Though i do try to learn in the interest of strengthening my beliefs.

You precaution is appreciated, though i might've gotten slightly defensive (sorry). I think we all learned that lesson in light of recent and horribly unfortunate events involving our former Metropolitan. It's always good to question the positions of our church leaders.

This "Archbishop" is not only against Blessed Father Seraphim and his "gnostic" teachinng of the Toll Houses, he is against many many Saints and Elders of the orthodox church!

The teaching is not a folk myth, or gnostic it is an important, ancient ,traditional teaching of the pan-orthodox church and everyone can proof this!

You have to read and study the church fathers and you will come across often about this issue!

it is mentioned in the scriptureSaint Makarios,Saint Athanasius the great mentioned it in the live of St, AntoniusSain Basil the new (Blessed Theodora, Blessed Gregory his disciple)Martyr Taxiotis Saint Theophan the RecluseSaint Ignatios or russiaSaint Justin of SerbiaSt. Nikolaj of Zicain the Philokaliein the EvergentinosProlog of Ohridin the famous monastery of Rila in frescos are shown all 20 Stations...............

And everyone who do not agree with him is guilty of sexual realtions or a heretic or gnostic!

I know some old calendarians from greece and usa and they all believe in the Toll houses!

In CHRIST

I am a catechumen in the Greek Orthodox Church, so I want to be certain up front that it is understood that I have much to learn (and un-learn). In America, when you say "Toll-House", 99.8% will tell you that refers to a cookie with chocolate chips in it :>) I was a protestant for 35 years, then a Roman Catholic for 25 years until recently. I mention this just to explain my context.

One thing I want to say in response to this post (quoted above) is that it could also be said, given the litany of alleged supporters you give for Toll-House theory, that an even greater litany of notables could have been given in support of Arius in the time of St. Athanasius. It seemed as if the whole world had gone after his (Arius') heresy (including the then Roman Bishop and the majority of other bishops and faithful). Athanasius was in a very small minority. When all was told, Arius was condemned as an heretic. So, IMHO, litanies of notables do not guarantee the orthodoxy of a posited theory or doctrine, as proven from history.

Perhaps, more importantly, 2 things come to my mind regarding this "discussion" of Archbishop Lazar (I do not know him, or his writings). If he was defrocked for disciplinary reasons or for being overly zealous in a refutation of a teaching he saw as dangerous and false, that is one thing. So with that said, #1) I saw where one person wrote on this thread that Archbishop Lazar seemed to be accepted "by those on the fringe". My response to that is : heaven forbid, he may also have been known to associate with publicans and sinners!!!

#2, and of deeper concern, is this question: What explanation or excuse can be legitimately given for putting this man into the center of a thread, without his knowledge, and proceeding to debate his legitimacy through some supportive remarks (excl. Euthymios), but a majority of perjorative, judgemental assessments and calumnies. Is this slander, gossip, tale-bearing? Would you like this to happen to you and your name/reputation? As a catechumen I am troubled to see this on an Orthodox Christian site and would be tempted to be scandalized by this, had I not already met my lifetime quota for being scandalized while among the Papists.

There is obviously room for disagreement, but not at the expense of a man who, from all indications, has given his life to serve God and to teach and protect His people. In the RCC, appeal could be made to the Pope on this matter, and settled unequivocably with no further recourse. Thanks be to God the Orthodox Church is not enslaved to such "lording it over the flock of God". However, as a catechuman, how is this obviously devisive and controversial teaching to be once and for all settled, and by whom? And is the toll-house teaching really 'purgatory' on steroids?!!

As an afterthought and in response to another writer's remarks, the retired Archbishop's political opinions regarding America as it is today, and the global utopian frenzy in general, should have no bearing on a discussion of toll-houses.

I need answers to the question I have asked here, which you have raised.

Christos Anesti!

Ivanov

« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 02:34:08 PM by Ivanov »

Logged

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." - "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes." - Holy Gospel

Then, and I mean this with absolute respectfulness and sincerity, I would humbly suggest the following:

1. Avoid controversies like the plague

2. Read the writings of the saints and Fathers rather than those of any contemporary Orthodox author whose way of life and fidelity to the patristic tradition has yet to be fully evaluated by the Church

3. Flee especially from those contemporary “teachers” who claim to “know better” than the glorified saints and Fathers

4. In reading the writings of the saints and Fathers, do not consider that you yourself “know better” than your bishops and priests, but maintain always a humble attitude, realizing that book knowledge is one thing and knowledge from the Holy Spirit through purification, illumination, and theosis is something else entirely.

I state the words above as one who has contributed way more than my fair share to the toll-house threads.

As a catechumen I am troubled to see this on an Orthodox Christian site and would be tempted to be scandalized by this, had I not already met my lifetime quota for being scandalized while among the Papists.

Nice post overall!

And with this sorta rhetoric where you hit at least two groups with your self-righteous shrapnel, I look forward to more of your well crafted missives.

This is about as deep a compliment I can muster, so please take no offense.

Thank you for your input. I am new to Orthodoxy, yes. But after 25+ hard fought years in the post-Vatican 2 RCC, I can assure you I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and advice you offer, though much like so many, faltering here and there as most of us unenlightened sinners do.

Ivanov

Dear Orthonorm,

Are you familiar with the term 'ad hominem' (to the man)? I was not angrily attacking or casting aspersions on any individual. I was expressing concern and asking for answers re: what seemed to me to be gossip/talebearing about someone who was not able to defend himself. RE: my statement about scandal while among the papists, (again a general statement about MY EXPERIENCE and NOT any individual), any RC current or ex will tell you more than you would want to hear about the ubiquitous scandals year after year that had to be endured. I use the term "papists" because it is simply precise, and certainly not original with me. I fail to see any self-righteousness or "shrapnel" (such hyperbole!!) in what I wrote. You offered no answers, there was no substance in your reply. Merely a caustic attempt at cuteness, which I must be quick to forgive, knowing full well that I too am capable of such.

This is why I am kicking myself for getting involved again (I had in the past) with a faceless blog where sniper-ing is the great temptation and typed words void of tonal nuance are read by who-knows-who and what mindset or agenda lurks beneath. This will be my last time spent on this site. If I have given offense, I sincerely ask your forgiveness... both of you. I know that I am a poor sinner. If there is smugness in what both of you have written, I will try give you what you failed to give me (a newbie)... the benefit of the doubt.

May God bless and keep each of us.

Ivanov

Logged

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." - "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes." - Holy Gospel

I notice that no one has added, to this thread, the thread's namesake's latest expressed views, advocating for sex-change operations for those who are of one gender but are trapped in a body of a different gender.

I notice that no one has added, to this thread, the thread's namesake's latest expressed views, advocating for sex-change operations for those who are of one gender but are trapped in a body of a different gender.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. (If ever we were.)

but if his grace is advocating such views, he is surely in Oz.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Then, and I mean this with absolute respectfulness and sincerity, I would humbly suggest the following:

1. Avoid controversies like the plague

2. Read the writings of the saints and Fathers rather than those of any contemporary Orthodox author whose way of life and fidelity to the patristic tradition has yet to be fully evaluated by the Church

3. Flee especially from those contemporary “teachers” who claim to “know better” than the glorified saints and Fathers

and those contemporary "teachers" who claim that the glorified saints and Fathers taught toll houses, what of them?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I can't tell if I should thank you or ignore you :>) Speak plainly... it's been a very long and tiring journey. And now I've made myself a liar by posting again

Ivanov

++++++++++=

re: Father's sex-change remarks, etc. ... I just want to respectfully remind that I was not entering the controversy as I clearly wrote at the outset... "I don't know him or his writings". There is not one inkling of any attempt on my part to defend his beliefs or theories (rather to say generally that appealing to litanies of notables is not always a guarantee of orthodoxy)... but there is abundant evidence of my desire to defend him as a brother in the Lord from being judged unknowingly and hurtfully in a public forum without redress... that concern has yet to be addressed by anyone. Do you desire reconciliation with him, or he with you? Does this thread represent that desire, or is it more of a friendly firing squad? I understand the gravity involved when one in a leadership position teaches or expresses views that can mislead or hurt souls, and that discipline and even excommunication can be called for... but a controversy like this happens, does the Orthodox Church have an exemption from immediately seeking justice and reconciliation... can it run quickly to the stone quarry without compunction? Can this happen to me once I become Orthodox, though I can't tell from my experience here if I have to be good enough or sinful enough for that to happen?! Oh my...

Now my earlier questions have gone from 'inquiry' to 'rhetorical'. Why bother? I will continue along, God willing, the clear path He has put before me, leading me to His Ancient Church, and so again,

thanking you for your priestly care and service, I ask for your prayers and understanding, and as always,

Forgive me. And jah777, thank you for your advice. I will always need to be reminded...

Ivanov

Now I will leave...

Logged

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." - "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes." - Holy Gospel

Then, and I mean this with absolute respectfulness and sincerity, I would humbly suggest the following:

1. Avoid controversies like the plague

2. Read the writings of the saints and Fathers rather than those of any contemporary Orthodox author whose way of life and fidelity to the patristic tradition has yet to be fully evaluated by the Church

3. Flee especially from those contemporary “teachers” who claim to “know better” than the glorified saints and Fathers

4. In reading the writings of the saints and Fathers, do not consider that you yourself “know better” than your bishops and priests, but maintain always a humble attitude, realizing that book knowledge is one thing and knowledge from the Holy Spirit through purification, illumination, and theosis is something else entirely.

I state the words above as one who has contributed way more than my fair share to the toll-house threads.

I agree; he should disregard all those modernists who claim universalism is heresy, and side with the likes of the glorified St. Isaac of Nineveh instead.

I notice that no one has added, to this thread, the thread's namesake's latest expressed views, advocating for sex-change operations for those who are of one gender but are trapped in a body of a different gender.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. (If ever we were.)

An interesting argument could potentially be made for that based in the idea that all of creation has been distorted due to the fall.

I agree; he should disregard all those modernists who claim universalism is heresy, and side with the likes of the glorified St. Isaac of Nineveh instead.

You do not agree with what I said, because I recommended the reading of the saints and the Fathers. I did not say to choose one saint, read only that one saint, and consider everything he says to be completely infallible. If he reads the saints and the Fathers (in the plural), he will see that universalism is not found in the consensus of the Fathers and has no place in Orthodoxy.

Then, and I mean this with absolute respectfulness and sincerity, I would humbly suggest the following:

1. Avoid controversies like the plague

2. Read the writings of the saints and Fathers rather than those of any contemporary Orthodox author whose way of life and fidelity to the patristic tradition has yet to be fully evaluated by the Church

3. Flee especially from those contemporary “teachers” who claim to “know better” than the glorified saints and Fathers

and those contemporary "teachers" who claim that the glorified saints and Fathers taught toll houses, what of them?

Don’t take their word for it but read what the saints and Fathers actually said on the subject of the soul after death, and see where they agree.

I notice that no one has added, to this thread, the thread's namesake's latest expressed views, advocating for sex-change operations for those who are of one gender but are trapped in a body of a different gender.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. (If ever we were.)

An interesting argument could potentially be made for that based in the idea that all of creation has been distorted due to the fall.

I can accept the argument that brain and chromosomal/genital sex can be confused and muddled in this fallen world, but it seems to me that sex-change operations don't actually change one's sex.

It would be a strange Orthodox Christian anthropology which accepts that mutilating the unfortunate penis makes one a woman, or that grafting one crafting one from other biological matter makes one a man.

I notice that no one has added, to this thread, the thread's namesake's latest expressed views, advocating for sex-change operations for those who are of one gender but are trapped in a body of a different gender.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. (If ever we were.)

An interesting argument could potentially be made for that based in the idea that all of creation has been distorted due to the fall.

I can accept the argument that brain and chromosomal/genital sex can be confused and muddled in this fallen world, but it seems to me that sex-change operations don't actually change one's sex.

It would be a strange Orthodox Christian anthropology which accepts that mutilating the unfortunate penis makes one a woman, or that grafting one crafting one from other biological matter makes one a man.

Perhaps this belongs in another thread, but I think we need to start taking seriously people who don't fall into neat categories. Who then attempt to butcher themselves in order to do so.

Time reconsider all this "gender" (hate the term) talk as if it is off and on.

Sometimes it don't work that way and we should accept that and love the people who have the misfortune of being born in a such a manner in such a world.

I notice that no one has added, to this thread, the thread's namesake's latest expressed views, advocating for sex-change operations for those who are of one gender but are trapped in a body of a different gender.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. (If ever we were.)

An interesting argument could potentially be made for that based in the idea that all of creation has been distorted due to the fall.

I can accept the argument that brain and chromosomal/genital sex can be confused and muddled in this fallen world, but it seems to me that sex-change operations don't actually change one's sex.

It would be a strange Orthodox Christian anthropology which accepts that mutilating the unfortunate penis makes one a woman, or that grafting one crafting one from other biological matter makes one a man.

Perhaps this belongs in another thread, but I think we need to start taking seriously people who don't fall into neat categories. Who then attempt to butcher themselves in order to do so.

Time reconsider all this "gender" (hate the term) talk as if it is off and on.

Sometimes it don't work that way and we should accept that and love the people who have the misfortune of being born in a such a manner in such a world.

I agree; he should disregard all those modernists who claim universalism is heresy, and side with the likes of the glorified St. Isaac of Nineveh instead.

You do not agree with what I said, because I recommended the reading of the saints and the Fathers. I did not say to choose one saint, read only that one saint, and consider everything he says to be completely infallible. If he reads the saints and the Fathers (in the plural), he will see that universalism is not found in the consensus of the Fathers and has no place in Orthodoxy.

Or he could read other Fathers and Saints from the first several centuries of the Church that DID teach universal salvation. My point remains though; saints have taught many things that other saints have condemned or at the least said was wrong. Toll houses are something that some saints have taught, but plenty of others have not.

I agree; he should disregard all those modernists who claim universalism is heresy, and side with the likes of the glorified St. Isaac of Nineveh instead.

You do not agree with what I said, because I recommended the reading of the saints and the Fathers. I did not say to choose one saint, read only that one saint, and consider everything he says to be completely infallible. If he reads the saints and the Fathers (in the plural), he will see that universalism is not found in the consensus of the Fathers and has no place in Orthodoxy.

Or he could read other Fathers and Saints from the first several centuries of the Church that DID teach universal salvation. My point remains though; saints have taught many things that other saints have condemned or at the least said was wrong. Toll houses are something that some saints have taught, but plenty of others have not.

there's quite a difference between not teaching something and condemning something.

I agree; he should disregard all those modernists who claim universalism is heresy, and side with the likes of the glorified St. Isaac of Nineveh instead.

You do not agree with what I said, because I recommended the reading of the saints and the Fathers. I did not say to choose one saint, read only that one saint, and consider everything he says to be completely infallible. If he reads the saints and the Fathers (in the plural), he will see that universalism is not found in the consensus of the Fathers and has no place in Orthodoxy.

Or he could read other Fathers and Saints from the first several centuries of the Church that DID teach universal salvation. My point remains though; saints have taught many things that other saints have condemned or at the least said was wrong. Toll houses are something that some saints have taught, but plenty of others have not.

Amen!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree; he should disregard all those modernists who claim universalism is heresy, and side with the likes of the glorified St. Isaac of Nineveh instead.

You do not agree with what I said, because I recommended the reading of the saints and the Fathers. I did not say to choose one saint, read only that one saint, and consider everything he says to be completely infallible. If he reads the saints and the Fathers (in the plural), he will see that universalism is not found in the consensus of the Fathers and has no place in Orthodoxy.

Or he could read other Fathers and Saints from the first several centuries of the Church that DID teach universal salvation. My point remains though; saints have taught many things that other saints have condemned or at the least said was wrong. Toll houses are something that some saints have taught, but plenty of others have not.

there's quite a difference between not teaching something and condemning something.

Yes; but if only a small number of saints teach something, do we really need to think it's true? I would wager that 98% of the saints never even mentioned the toll houses one way or another. Really, a much stronger patristic case can be made for universal salvation than for the toll houses; if you believe in toll houses because you think the Fathers taught them, you really ought to believe in universal salvation.

These statements about universalism are entirely incorrect. Name even one Saint or Church Father who taught the idea of apokatastasis or universal salvation of every single creature or human. And then, we have clear teaching on this from an Ecumenical Council. That stands for something, in our Faith. Since both Eastern and Western rites of the Church have the idea of the possibility of damnation or outright declarations about damnation of at least Judas and Arius in them, we can say, in a nutshell, that all the Saints prayed in a rite which expresses possibility or the fact of partial damnation, which is also clearly taught in the Gospel itself.

Ever since about the 5th century, the Eastern rite has prayers in its cycle of services, in texts regularly occurring year in and year out, which declare the toll-house or at least Intercepting Demons In the Air Accosting Souls. So we can safely say that at least the Eastern Saints regularly prayed, chanted, and listened to services declaring this, without ever thinking to utter a peep of disagreement with it. That's going beyond the passive reception of a teaching, when it's being proclaimed in church and listened to without a hint of doubt or a hint of queasiness. The Western Rite did/does not have regularly-recurring liturgical texts which proclaim this teaching, but it is found in a rather hazy form in the lives of some of the Western Saints. But the West never emphasized this, very much. Almost 100% of the Saints of the last 1000 years have kept to the Eastern rite(s) of the Church.

These statements about universalism are entirely incorrect. Name even one Saint or Church Father who taught the idea of apokatastasis or universal salvation of every single creature or human. And then, we have clear teaching on this from an Ecumenical Council. That stands for something, in our Faith. Since both Eastern and Western rites of the Church have the idea of the possibility of damnation or outright declarations about damnation of at least Judas and Arius in them, we can say, in a nutshell, that all the Saints prayed in a rite which expresses possibility or the fact of partial damnation, which is also clearly taught in the Gospel itself.

Ever since about the 5th century, the Eastern rite has prayers in its cycle of services, in texts regularly occurring year in and year out, which declare the toll-house or at least Intercepting Demons In the Air Accosting Souls. So we can safely say that at least the Eastern Saints regularly prayed, chanted, and listened to services declaring this, without ever thinking to utter a peep of disagreement with it. That's going beyond the passive reception of a teaching, when it's being proclaimed in church and listened to without a hint of doubt or a hint of queasiness. The Western Rite did/does not have regularly-recurring liturgical texts which proclaim this teaching, but it is found in a rather hazy form in the lives of some of the Western Saints. But the West never emphasized this, very much. Almost 100% of the Saints of the last 1000 years have kept to the Eastern rite(s) of the Church.

St. Isaac of Nineveh very clearly taught universal salvation; he viewed Gehenna as, essentially, Purgatory, and believed all would be reconciled to God - including the demons.

Well whatever one says of Puhalo, he is in the OCA. Some of the OCA says toll houses are part of tradition & apparently some, like Pulaho, say not. Some say St. John of Damascus teaches about the toll houses & indeed some claim him as the anchor of that alleged tradtion, see: http://stmichaelacademy.org/theo/stjd.htm

One will note that the tollers continue to refer to hymnography "attributed" to St. John of Damascus while if one reads his "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" the toll houses do not seem to be mentioned (I looked & cannot find 'em). see: http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

The salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ is in the Holy Bible.

John 3:7

King James Version (KJV)

John 3:7

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again

John 3:7

John 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Just call upon the Lord:

Romans 10:9-13

King James Version (KJV)

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Even if a Saint believed something which has by now been condemned by an Ecumenical Council, the Ecumenical Council is the teaching of the Church.

But I have not read anything by St. Isaac of Nineveh which amounts to a teaching that all demons will find salvation, and all men. I really don't think he does, although I am convince-able and keeping my mind open.